With the recent success of large language models (LLMs), the idea of AI-augmented Business Process Management systems is becoming more feasible. One of their essential characteristics is the ability to be conversationally actionable, allowing humans to interact with the LLM effectively to perform crucial process life cycle tasks such as process model design and redesign. However, most current research focuses on single-prompt execution and evaluation of results, rather than on continuous interaction between the user and the LLM. In this work, we aim to explore the feasibility of using LLMs to empower domain experts in the creation and redesign of process models in an iterative and effective way. The proposed conversational process model redesign (CPD) approach receives as input a process model and a redesign request by the user in natural language. Instead of just letting the LLM make changes, the LLM is employed to (a) identify process change patterns from literature, (b) re-phrase the change request to be aligned with an expected wording for the identified pattern (i.e., the meaning), and then to (c) apply the meaning of the change to the process model. This multi-step approach allows for explainable and reproducible changes. In order to ensure the feasibility of the CPD approach, and to find out how well the patterns from literature can be handled by the LLM, we performed an extensive evaluation. The results show that some patterns are hard to understand by LLMs and by users. Within the scope of the study, we demonstrated that users need support to describe the changes clearly. Overall the evaluation shows that the LLMs can handle most changes well according to a set of completeness and correctness criteria.

Business processes are prone to unexpected changes, as process workers may suddenly or gradually start executing a process differently in order to adjust to changes in workload, season, or other external factors. Early detection of business process changes enables managers to identify and act upon changes that may otherwise affect process performance. Business process drift detection refers to a family of methods to detect changes in a business process by analyzing event logs extracted from the systems that support the execution of the process. Existing methods for business process drift detection are based on an explorative analysis of a potentially large feature space and in some cases they require users to manually identify specific features that characterize the drift. Depending on the explored feature space, these methods miss various types of changes. Moreover, they are either designed to detect sudden drifts or gradual drifts but not both. This paper proposes an automated and statistically grounded method for detecting sudden and gradual business process drifts under a unified framework. An empirical evaluation shows that the method detects typical change patterns with significantly higher accuracy and lower detection delay than existing methods, while accurately distinguishing between sudden and gradual drifts.

Real life business processes change over time, in both planned and unexpected ways. The detection of these changes is crucial for organizations to ensure that the expected and the real behavior are as similar as possible. These changes over time are called concept drift and its detection is a big challenge in process mining since the inherent complexity of the data makes difficult distinguishing between a change and an anomalous execution. In this paper, we present C2D2 (Conformance Checking-based Drift Detection), a new approach to detect sudden control-flow changes in the process models from event traces. C2D2 combines discovery techniques with conformance checking methods to perform an offline detection. Our approach has been validated with a synthetic benchmarking dataset formed by 68 logs, showing an improvement in the accuracy while maintaining a minimum delay in the drift detection.

We present two connectionist architectures for chunking of symbolic rewrite rules. One uses backpropagation learning, the other competitive learning. Although they were developed for chunking the same sorts of rules, the two differ in their representational abilities and learning behaviors.

We present two connectionist architectures for chunking of symbolic rewrite rules. One uses backpropagation learning, the other competitive learning. Although they were developed for chunking the same sorts of rules, the two differ in their representational abilities and learning behaviors.

We present two connectionist architectures for chunking of symbolic rewrite rules. One uses backpropagation learning, the other competitive learning. Although they were developed for chunking the same sorts of rules, the two differ in their representational abilities and learning behaviors.